The Union and Odisha governments have strongly opposed the imposition of a cap on iron ore mining in Odisha, arguing before the Supreme Court that such a restriction would impede India’s economic growth and undermine the vision of Atma Nirbhar Bharat. The case comes in response to a petition by the non-profit organization Common Cause, which seeks a cap on mineral extraction in Odisha similar to the limits imposed earlier in Karnataka and Goa. The petitioner’s argument is based on the principle of inter-generational equity, aiming to preserve natural resources for future generations.

During the proceedings, the government emphasized that the circumstances surrounding mining in Odisha have changed significantly since 2013, when the caps were imposed in Karnataka, and subsequently in Goa. The Ministries of Mines (MoM) and Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) pointed out that technological advancements, stricter regulatory oversight, and legal safeguards now exist to prevent the kind of illegal mining that previously occurred in Karnataka. These measures ensure that mineral extraction is carried out within legal and sustainable frameworks.

Odisha’s Strategic Role in India’s Mineral Sector

Odisha currently accounts for approximately 50 percent of India’s total iron ore production, making it a critical contributor to the country’s steel and manufacturing sectors. According to the government’s affidavit, despite the extraction of millions of tonnes of iron ore, Odisha’s resource base has grown by 133 percent, increasing from 4,180 million tonnes in 2000 to 9,737.24 million tonnes in 2023. The Ministry of Mines further highlighted that 71.52 percent of the potential area for iron ore in Odisha remains unexplored geologically, indicating significant future resource availability.

The Union government argued that imposing a cap would directly impact steel production, which is a backbone of infrastructure development and industrial growth in India. Steel is essential for a wide range of sectors, including railways, airports, bridges, ports, real estate, and manufacturing, all of which are critical for sustaining India’s high growth trajectory. The government emphasized that domestic steel production is indispensable for these sectors, and any reduction in iron ore extraction would create a bottleneck in meeting the country’s development needs.

In a separate affidavit, the Odisha government echoed these concerns, highlighting that every major industry—from defense and healthcare to automobiles—relies on steel. It stressed that capping iron ore mining could lead to a substantial deficit in the production of steel and other metals, which would have serious repercussions for industrial growth and employment generation. The affidavit explicitly stated that the dream of Atma Nirbhar Bharat is dependent on sustained mineral production and would be sabotaged by any unwarranted capping of mining activities.

Inter-Generational Equity and Sustainable Mining

Addressing the petitioner’s arguments, the Centre clarified that the concept of inter-generational equity does not automatically require imposing bans or limits on mineral extraction. Instead, it should be understood in a holistic manner, taking into account the development needs of the country, potential augmentation of resources, and possibilities for recycling and efficient utilization. On all these parameters, the government argued, no cap on iron ore production is warranted.

The government also noted that Odisha’s current production of iron ore, at 159.22 million tonnes, is significantly below the Environmental Carrying Capacity (ECC) sanctioned for the state’s mines, which is 272.98 million tonnes until 2024-25. This demonstrates that mining activities in the state remain well within environmentally permissible limits, further negating the need for any additional restriction.

Legal Context and Supreme Court Directives

The issue of capping mining in Odisha arises within a broader legal and regulatory context. In August 2017, the Supreme Court had directed the recovery of compensation from miners who extracted iron ore beyond permissible limits. Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, representing Common Cause, pointed out that Odisha had failed to recover amounts exceeding ₹2,700 crore from private miners despite the court’s instructions.

During the current hearing, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih reprimanded the state for its non-compliance with the 2017 order and granted eight weeks for the government to indicate the steps it was taking to recover the dues. As for the issue of imposing a cap on mining, the court has posted the matter for consideration in January 2026, allowing Common Cause and the amicus curiae, senior advocate ADN Rao, to respond to the government’s affidavits.

Technological and Regulatory Safeguards

The Centre emphasized that Odisha’s mining sector has undergone substantial changes in regulation and oversightover the past decade. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change informed the court that in 2023, the matter of imposing a cap was reviewed in consultation with the expert body CSIR-NEERI, which did not support a limit on mining. NEERI’s assessment concluded that technological advancements in mining, coupled with updated legal frameworks, render a cap unnecessary.

Further, Rule 35 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules (MCDR) 2017 provides for a star-rating system for mining leases, which evaluates the sustainable mining practices adopted by leaseholders. This system encourages responsible extraction, ensuring that operations comply with environmental standards while allowing for resource utilization.

The government also highlighted that the introduction of an auction-based regime for the grant of mineral concessionshas enhanced transparency and accountability in the mining sector. Under the current system, obtaining all statutory clearances is mandatory before execution of a mining lease, minimizing the risk of illegal or unsustainable extraction.

Broader Implications for India’s Growth

The government’s submission stressed that any cap on iron ore mining in Odisha could have far-reaching consequences for India’s economic growth and industrial development. Steel production, a direct output of iron ore mining, is critical not only for infrastructure but also for sectors like automobiles, defense, manufacturing, and healthcare, which are essential for national self-reliance.

By restricting mining, the government warned, India risks slowing down its high-growth trajectory, potentially affecting job creation and economic development across multiple sectors. The affidavits argued that mineral resource management must balance sustainability with the developmental needs of the nation, and current data indicate that Odisha’s mining practices are both sustainable and adequately regulated.

Conclusion

The government’s position before the Supreme Court underscores the view that capping iron ore mining in Odisha is unnecessary and counterproductive. With reserves increasing, technological advancements in mining, regulatory safeguards, and sustainable practices in place, the state is equipped to continue extraction without compromising environmental or social responsibilities. The court will now deliberate whether inter-generational equity warrants any limits on mining or if the current framework sufficiently balances development with resource conservation.

In the meantime, the Odisha government has been asked to comply with past directives regarding the recovery of compensation dues, and the broader debate on capping mining will continue in the coming months. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for India’s mining policies, industrial growth, and the realization of the Atma Nirbhar Bharat vision, highlighting the delicate balance between economic development and environmental stewardship.

---